BACKGROUND: In view of the high risk of developing a new primary colorectal carcinoma (CRC), subtotal colectomy rather than segmental resection or hemicolectomy is the preferred treatment in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) patients. Subtotal colectomy however implies a substantial decrease in quality of life. To date, colonoscopic surveillance has been shown to reduce CRC occurrence. AIMS: To compare the potential health effects in terms of life expectancy (LE) for patients undergoing subtotal colectomy or hemicolectomy for CRC. METHODS: A decision analysis (Markov) model was created. Information on the 10 year risk of CRC after subtotal colectomy (4%) and hemicolectomy (16%) and stages of CRCs detected within a two year surveillance interval (32% Dukes' A, 54% Dukes' B, and 14% Dukes' C) were derived from two cohort studies. Five year survival rates used for the different Dukes stages (A, B, and C) were 98%, 80%, and 60%, respectively. Remaining LE values were calculated for hypothetical cohorts with an age at CRC diagnosis of 27, 47, and 67 years, respectively. Remaining LE values were also calculated for patients with CRC of Dukes' stage A. RESULTS: The overall LE gain of subtotal colectomy compared with hemicolectomy at ages 27, 47, and 67 was 2.3, 1, and 0.3 years, respectively. Specifically for Dukes' stage A, this would be 3.4, 1.5, and 0.4 years. CONCLUSIONS: Unless surveillance results improve, subtotal colectomy still seems the preferred treatment for CRC in HNPCC in view of the difference in LE. For older patients, hemicolectomy may be an option as there is no appreciable difference in LE.
BACKGROUND: In view of the high risk of developing a new primary colorectal carcinoma (CRC), subtotal colectomy rather than segmental resection or hemicolectomy is the preferred treatment in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) patients. Subtotal colectomy however implies a substantial decrease in quality of life. To date, colonoscopic surveillance has been shown to reduce CRC occurrence. AIMS: To compare the potential health effects in terms of life expectancy (LE) for patients undergoing subtotal colectomy or hemicolectomy for CRC. METHODS: A decision analysis (Markov) model was created. Information on the 10 year risk of CRC after subtotal colectomy (4%) and hemicolectomy (16%) and stages of CRCs detected within a two year surveillance interval (32% Dukes' A, 54% Dukes' B, and 14% Dukes' C) were derived from two cohort studies. Five year survival rates used for the different Dukes stages (A, B, and C) were 98%, 80%, and 60%, respectively. Remaining LE values were calculated for hypothetical cohorts with an age at CRC diagnosis of 27, 47, and 67 years, respectively. Remaining LE values were also calculated for patients with CRC of Dukes' stage A. RESULTS: The overall LE gain of subtotal colectomy compared with hemicolectomy at ages 27, 47, and 67 was 2.3, 1, and 0.3 years, respectively. Specifically for Dukes' stage A, this would be 3.4, 1.5, and 0.4 years. CONCLUSIONS: Unless surveillance results improve, subtotal colectomy still seems the preferred treatment for CRC in HNPCC in view of the difference in LE. For older patients, hemicolectomy may be an option as there is no appreciable difference in LE.
Authors: P Van Duijvendijk; J F Slors; C W Taat; P Oosterveld; M A Sprangers; H Obertop; H F Vasen Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: W S Samowitz; K Curtin; H H Lin; M A Robertson; D Schaffer; M Nichols; K Gruenthal; M F Leppert; M L Slattery Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: R Salovaara; A Loukola; P Kristo; H Kääriäinen; H Ahtola; M Eskelinen; N Härkönen; R Julkunen; E Kangas; S Ojala; J Tulikoura; E Valkamo; H Järvinen; J P Mecklin; L A Aaltonen; A de la Chapelle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Wouter H de Vos tot Nederveen Cappel; Fokko M Nagengast; Gerrit Griffioen; Fred H Menko; Babs G Taal; Jan H Kleibeuker; Hans F Vasen Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: A Percesepe; F Borghi; M Menigatti; L Losi; M Foroni; C Di Gregorio; G Rossi; M Pedroni; E Sala; F Vaccina; L Roncucci; P Benatti; A Viel; M Genuardi; G Marra; P Kristo; P Peltomäki; M Ponz de Leon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: H J Järvinen; M Aarnio; H Mustonen; K Aktan-Collan; L A Aaltonen; P Peltomäki; A De La Chapelle; J P Mecklin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: H F Vasen; A Stormorken; F H Menko; F M Nagengast; J H Kleibeuker; G Griffioen; B G Taal; P Moller; J T Wijnen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-10-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Susan Parry; Aung Ko Win; Bryan Parry; Finlay A Macrae; Lyle C Gurrin; James M Church; John A Baron; Graham G Giles; Barbara A Leggett; Ingrid Winship; Lara Lipton; Graeme P Young; Joanne P Young; Caroline J Lodge; Melissa C Southey; Polly A Newcomb; Loïc Le Marchand; Robert W Haile; Noralane M Lindor; Steven Gallinger; John L Hopper; Mark A Jenkins Journal: Gut Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 23.059